Low FPS? Ailos' guide to having a better experience. - Page 3

inflectious · 2012-12-05, 07:18 PM

Hey there, Ailos!

I've just build a mid-range computer and have yet to upgrade my graphics card. As for the processor: I've got an [email protected] (4.0 won't be a stretch even using the stock cooler, it seems. Perhaps I got lucky with the batch. Perhaps I got lucky with the AS-5 application). As for the RAM: I've got 16GB of DDR3 1600.

As for the graphics card... I am using an Nvidia GeForce 9600GT from many years ago. I plan to purchase a GTX 660Ti early next year after the price drops a bit. Will this swap allow me to play the game with some eye candy and a decent framerate? I've also got a CPU cooler upgrade scheduled... would hitting 4.3 or 4.4GHz be a good target?

Thanks!

Edit: I guess I should mention that with all settings on low and 75% (?) render I get 30-40FPS during calmer moments and 10-25 during chaos. As you probably know, GPU is the limiting factor 100% of the time at this point.

-Inflectious

Rbstr · 2012-12-05, 10:32 PM

Probably.

With a 570 I'm getting better frames than you are but severely stuck on a CPU bottleneck. You should be much better off in CPU and about the same GPU.

Ailos · 2012-12-05, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by inflectious

Hey there, Ailos!

I've just build a mid-range computer and have yet to upgrade my graphics card. As for the processor: I've got an [email protected] (4.0 won't be a stretch even using the stock cooler, it seems. Perhaps I got lucky with the batch. Perhaps I got lucky with the AS-5 application). As for the RAM: I've got 16GB of DDR3 1600.

As for the graphics card... I am using an Nvidia GeForce 9600GT from many years ago. I plan to purchase a GTX 660Ti early next year after the price drops a bit. Will this swap allow me to play the game with some eye candy and a decent framerate? I've also got a CPU cooler upgrade scheduled... would hitting 4.3 or 4.4GHz be a good target?

Thanks!

Edit: I guess I should mention that with all settings on low and 75% (?) render I get 30-40FPS during calmer moments and 10-25 during chaos. As you probably know, GPU is the limiting factor 100% of the time at this point.

-Inflectious

660 Ti should be ample for max eye candy unless you're wanting to run at more than 1080p. For me, even with a 680 in surround view, the 3570K is the bottleneck in heavier fights and leaves me with ~45 fps.

moushn · 2012-12-07, 11:32 AM

[Rendering]
GraphicsQuality=3
TextureQuality=2
ShadowQuality=0
RenderDistance=10000
Gamma=0.000000
MaximumFPS=60
UseLod0a=0
OverallQuality=-1
LightingQuality=3
EffectsQuality=2
TerrainQuality=2
FloraQuality=0
ModelQuality=2
VerticalFOV=66
ParticleLOD=1
ParticleDistanceScale=0.650000
FogShadowsEnable=0
MotionBlur=0
VSync=0
AO=0

My useroptions.
Notable changes shadowquality and floraquality.
For anyone who is playing as infantry, lower the render distance to 700-1000. As a pilot, I like to see pretty far ahead and I am not that stupid to attack huge bases (unless biolabs) because of the AA's.

moushn · 2012-12-07, 11:34 AM

[Rendering]
GraphicsQuality=3
TextureQuality=2
ShadowQuality=0
RenderDistance=10000
Gamma=0.000000
MaximumFPS=60
UseLod0a=0
OverallQuality=-1
LightingQuality=3
EffectsQuality=2
TerrainQuality=2
FloraQuality=0
ModelQuality=2
VerticalFOV=66
ParticleLOD=1
ParticleDistanceScale=0.650000
FogShadowsEnable=0
MotionBlur=0
VSync=0
AO=0

My useroptions.
Notable changes shadowquality and floraquality.
For anyone who is playing as infantry, lower the render distance to 700-1000. As a pilot, I like to see pretty far ahead and I am not that stupid to attack huge bases (unless biolabs) because of the AA's.

Rbstr · 2012-12-07, 01:35 PM

Just a reminder to people who might not be terribly technical: Don't go fudging with the useroptions without making a copy of your original and don't fiddle with it without some understanding of what the options mean.

Ailos · 2012-12-08, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by moushn

My useroptions.
Notable changes shadowquality and floraquality.
For anyone who is playing as infantry, lower the render distance to 700-1000. As a pilot, I like to see pretty far ahead and I am not that stupid to attack huge bases (unless biolabs) because of the AA's.

You REALLY hate eye candy, don't you?

/shrug. I wouldn't play at that level, but that's just me. Whatever works for you.

Donefore · 2012-12-10, 10:37 AM

This works ok In your Planetside 2 folder look for UserOpions open it and look for "RenderDistance=1000" change it to =1000 it helps alot.

went from 30-40fps to 50-70 in a fight
Driving & Flying was 40-70fps now 70-110fps

SOE says its OK

Donefore

MaximusPowerz · 2012-12-11, 12:46 PM

Ok, I need some advice on a small upgrade, and whether you guys think it will make a significant difference. Basically, whenever there are small groups, or at the warp gate, I get between 30-40 fps, and the game indicates it is GPU limited. I'm fine with that. However, when we get into big battles, the framerate slows right down to just over 10 fps, which is much to slow to be effective. The game indicates that CPU is the bottleneck. I have played with the performance monitor open on the other screen, and it consistently shows the CPU at between 40-60% used, evenly spread across the 4 cores. However, the RAM is almost completely used.

My question is, would increasing the RAM (I only have 4 GB now and a 32 bit system) improve the frame rate performance, or would it be a waste of time and money? Also, I know a better CPU and better GPU would be great, but budget is extremely limited at the moment.

Rbstr · 2012-12-11, 01:05 PM

Waste of time and money to add RAM to a 32bit system that's already got more RAM in it than it can really handle.

Of course you haven't told us your system specs, so who really knows where you stand overall.

MaximusPowerz · 2012-12-11, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Waste of time and money to add RAM to a 32bit system that's already got more RAM in it than it can really handle.

Of course you haven't told us your system specs, so who really knows where you stand overall.

Well, I meant that I would also upgrade to a 64 bit OS, since 32 bit only supports 4GB. I forgot to include that part. Currently, it's an older system, was ahead of it's time when built, but is starting to show it's age now.

Intel Core 2 Quad, Q6600
GeForce 8800GT

JawsOfLife · 2012-12-11, 03:11 PM

Incredible work good sir! This should really help the community out.

Just a quick question here: I have 4 GB of 2x2GB 1333 mhz RAM along with 8GB 2x4GB 1600 Mhz RAM. Would I get a performance boost by taking out the 4 GB 1333 MHz, RAM, as it is downclocking the faster RAM? Or is 12GB slower RAM going to be better than 8GB at a faster speed?

Rbstr · 2012-12-11, 05:36 PM

Unless you've got a ton going on in the background 8gb or 12gb should make no functional difference to the game.
So...1600mhz should help but not much, and only if you go into the BIOS and overclock to 1600mhz, because your CPU doesn't officially support that speed.

Max: I'd guess it would help. I have no idea how much.

Ailos · 2012-12-11, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by MaximusPowerz

Well, I meant that I would also upgrade to a 64 bit OS, since 32 bit only supports 4GB. I forgot to include that part. Currently, it's an older system, was ahead of it's time when built, but is starting to show it's age now.

Intel Core 2 Quad, Q6600
GeForce 8800GT

According to Tom's Hardware CPU performance Hierarchy chart your Q6600 has performance on par with a Phenom II X6 1055T, which is actually more along the lines of the recommended official specs. With that in mind, I'd think your having only 4 GB may actually be impacting your performance, but whether you should add more RAM is somewhat questionable. I'd recommend adding more RAM if you actually see the game running out of resources, or upgrading to faster RAM if you're running at a speed below DDR3-1066, if your motherboard supports it. On extension, you don't actually have to upgrade to a 64-bit system if you decide to change up to 8 GB - you can use the unaccessible 4 GB as a RAM Disk, and have your pagefile on there, though I'd recommend this only if you understood what that means.

So in other words, open up your task manager, and see how much RAM you're ACTUALLY using during the game before you commit to upgrade.

Originally Posted by JawsOfLife

Incredible work good sir! This should really help the community out.

Just a quick question here: I have 4 GB of 2x2GB 1333 mhz RAM along with 8GB 2x4GB 1600 Mhz RAM. Would I get a performance boost by taking out the 4 GB 1333 MHz, RAM, as it is downclocking the faster RAM? Or is 12GB slower RAM going to be better than 8GB at a faster speed?

I advise against doing that. Unless your motherboard specifically states otherwise, mixing your memory modules will cause your memory controller to switch to single-channel mode halving your memory bandwidth, which is the one thing that makes that SB i3 be such a potent gaming CPU.
Furthermore, having more than 8 GB of RAM currently makes little difference to games in general.

With all that in mind, I'd expect you to gain a lot more by simply taking out the 2 GB sticks and distributing each of the 4 GB ones between the channels. You might gain a few more frames still if your motherboard actually allows those modules to run at DDR3-1600 rather than the -1333 they would clock down to by default.

HiroshiChugi · 2012-12-13, 06:01 PM

hey i just wanna say thank you for taking the time to sit down and write all of this. i found it extremely useful but i just have one question: can you tell me what i can do to make my game run at it's peak performance according to my computer stats? here they are:

Toshiba Satellite C655
Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2330M CPU @ 2020 GHz 2.20 GHz
4.00 GB RAM
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit Operating System
Internal Video Card (I'm not sure of those specs)